5 ms·

Lets put it this way - say I have a company that makes cars, and I tell you - a potential investor of more than a billion dollars - that I have shipped a millio

Lets put it this way - say I have a company that makes cars, and I tell you - a potential investor of more than a billion dollars - that I have shipped a million cars this year and you should give me money on the basis of that revenue, are you an idiot if you don't ask to see the actual receipts that show that I have actually, indeed, shipped a million cars this year? Yes, I think you would be, and anyone who has given you money to spend on this act, should think so too .. Trust, but verify: This is a pretty basic business rule. Twitter has a responsibility to demonstrate that the trust they expect in their own estimations of their own market value, is actually verifiable - and with an issue of humans/bots ratio, they should surely be willing to be as open and honest as possible about this issue. Twitters core value, the basis of their own estimation of the value of their stock, is entirely derived from the actual # of human eyeballs they have attached to their systems. If those eyeballs are really just blind sockets on the outside of a software-based bot, then Twitter is factually lying about how many humans it has in its system. This would be essential for any buyer to know beforehand, and I really am astonished at the efforts you are going to justify this omission on Twitters' part. The bot to human ratio is a KEY factor to understand in correctly evaluating Twitters real value - how anyone can argue that Twitter don't have the responsibility to demonstrate the accuracy of their estimation of market value, especially in the HN environment, is beyond me. Perhaps the Musk-hate rage is blinding you to the rationality of Musks' request. "Hey, you say you are worth this much because <blah>, please show me that <blah> is actually a truthful and accurate estimation .." - this is not at all an unreasonable request. Twitter board executives DO have the responsibility of answering the claim that their user group is a certain percentage human. The fact that they haven't done this easily and openly is telling, in and of itself - and I would wager that most making the claim that they don't have a responsibility of being honest about the number of users in their system, are in fact engaged themselves in deceit and dishonesty on the issue of "actual users" versus "pretend users". How else can you justify the non-response? Twitter should be able to easily answer the question: bot to human ratio? It is fundamental to their core purpose as a business to know the answer to this question. The fact that they can't, and are instead engaging in an anti-Musk agitprop campaign, is very, very telling ...

zimpenfish 4y ago
> how anyone can argue that Twitter don't have the responsibility to demonstrate the accuracy of their estimation of market value The problem is that the person who made the unprompted offer of $54.20 per share - thus estimating the market value at $44bn - spent weeks going on about how they thought Twitter's bot estimates were too low and that they were buying Twitter to fix this bot problem. To then turn around and go "wah wah too many bots" is somewhat disingenuous, no? (Also, Twitter have been using the same methods of bot estimation since 2013, afaik, and have submitted these numbers to the SEC every year. If they were plausibly wrong, someone would have flagged it before now, right? Because that would be submitting false data to the SEC and, I believe, they consider that A Bad Thing.)
CogitoCogito 4y ago
Do these arguments defends against the claims made in the suit brought by Twitter? No? Well then how are they relevant? How are the bots relevant to that suit? Of course Musk is free to counter-sue I guess and make the bots the point of contention.
tveita 4y ago
He already signed the deal. Yes it would be rational to ask for all of this before committing to buying Twitter at a set price, but apparently he didn't. You talk about "Musk-hate" but your post says you think he's an idiot.
Volundr 4y ago
> are you an idiot if you don't ask to see the actual receipts that show that I have actually, indeed, shipped a million cars this year? Probably. Did Musk sign an agreement explicitly waving his right to see the receipts? Yes.
Cederfjard 4y ago
Multiple people have already said this, but I'll ask just for the sake of it: Are you aware that Elon forewent his due diligence by simply skipping that part and going straight to signing the deal? That means that Twitter DOES NOT have the responsibility that you claim. Sure, you may think that according to a certain moral framework they do, but in the context of this deal, which is what the thread is about and what the people you are responding to are talking about, it is irrelevant. I might add as well as a counter to your accusations of "Musk-hate rage", that perhaps it's you who's suffering from Twitter-hate rage with a dash of Musk-fanboyism, and that it's Elon who's twisting the truth for his own gain rather than Twitter. Could that not be the case? Lastly, it's not a "non-response". Twitter has continuously provided Musk with the data he's asked for, he just keeps asking for more. Also, even if you ridicule the idea, some data is simply _not_ appropriate nor necessary to share before a sale. Otherwise you could find out any trade secret from anyone simply by making an offer and then reneging on it.

zimpenfish 4y ago

> how anyone can argue that Twitter don't have the responsibility to demonstrate the accuracy of their estimation of market value The problem is that the person who made the unprompted offer of $54.20 per share - thus estimating the market value at $44bn - spent weeks going on about how they thought Twitter's bot estimates were too low and that they were buying Twitter to fix this bot problem. To then turn around and go "wah wah too many bots" is somewhat disingenuous, no? (Also, Twitter have been using the same methods of bot estimation since 2013, afaik, and have submitted these numbers to the SEC every year. If they were plausibly wrong, someone would have flagged it before now, right? Because that would be submitting false data to the SEC and, I believe, they consider that A Bad Thing.)

CogitoCogito 4y ago

Do these arguments defends against the claims made in the suit brought by Twitter? No? Well then how are they relevant? How are the bots relevant to that suit? Of course Musk is free to counter-sue I guess and make the bots the point of contention.

tveita 4y ago

He already signed the deal. Yes it would be rational to ask for all of this before committing to buying Twitter at a set price, but apparently he didn't. You talk about "Musk-hate" but your post says you think he's an idiot.

Volundr 4y ago

> are you an idiot if you don't ask to see the actual receipts that show that I have actually, indeed, shipped a million cars this year? Probably. Did Musk sign an agreement explicitly waving his right to see the receipts? Yes.

Cederfjard 4y ago

Multiple people have already said this, but I'll ask just for the sake of it: Are you aware that Elon forewent his due diligence by simply skipping that part and going straight to signing the deal? That means that Twitter DOES NOT have the responsibility that you claim. Sure, you may think that according to a certain moral framework they do, but in the context of this deal, which is what the thread is about and what the people you are responding to are talking about, it is irrelevant. I might add as well as a counter to your accusations of "Musk-hate rage", that perhaps it's you who's suffering from Twitter-hate rage with a dash of Musk-fanboyism, and that it's Elon who's twisting the truth for his own gain rather than Twitter. Could that not be the case? Lastly, it's not a "non-response". Twitter has continuously provided Musk with the data he's asked for, he just keeps asking for more. Also, even if you ridicule the idea, some data is simply _not_ appropriate nor necessary to share before a sale. Otherwise you could find out any trade secret from anyone simply by making an offer and then reneging on it.